Red Bull RB22

[G82comp]

Can anyone tell me what the small exhaust cover is trying to accomplish? It looks like it just blocks a small amount of the exhaust opening. I really don’t understand the purpose.

[venkyhere]

Can anyone tell me what the small exhaust cover is trying to accomplish? It looks like it just blocks a small amount of the exhaust opening. I really don’t understand the purpose.

Thumb on a hosepipe principle - to make the exhaust shoot out faster, as close to the crash structure (they have moved the position of the tailpipe lower) as possible, to scrape up minor gains from enticing the diffuser extraction to be marginally quicker.

[venkyhere]

Does this interpretation (exaggerated drawing) make sense ? aero experts kindly comment..

[michl420]

If you want an upside down wing, I think this solution is the best way to do it. Ferrari's is a bit over-engineered and I am not convinced it's any better for all that trouble it takes to make it work.

The disadvantage of Red Bull's design will probably be when in corner-mode. Having the central pod, and those very prominent hinges/swing-arms at either side of the flap will almost certainly reduce overall efficiency. Ferrari's wing is so much cleaner and unencumbered in comparison, but it's impossible to tell which trade-off is superior at this stage.

I think this swing arms at the side are there to have the flap higher and/or more foreward in the open position, in contrast to ferrari. I can`t think of another reason to have such a "complicated" pivot point. They could have make it in the same position as ferrari even with the central pod.

[AR3-GP]

I think this swing arms at the side are there to have the flap higher and/or more foreward in the open position, in contrast to ferrari. I can`t think of another reason to have such a "complicated" pivot point.

The position of the rotation axis of the flap is primarily to prevent the leading edge of the flap from contacting the trailing edge of the mainplane when it starts to rotate. This is a consideration that has to happen when you intend to rotate the wing in the direction that Red Bull have chosen (for faster pressure recovery), as opposed to the direction that Ferrari have chosen. Unlike what dr obbs said on twitter (Which was wrong), Red Bull would not need to make any compromise to the mainplane (like shortening it). The rotation axis sits above the leading edge of the flap, which means it doesn't move down when it rotates. That's just a geometry thing. If they put the rotation axis at the back like Ferrari, the leading edge of the flap would translate down and hit the mainplane.

[AR3-GP]

You could also think of the leading edge of the flap like points on a clock. It's position relative to the rotation axis defines whether it also moves up or down when it starts to rotate. In Red Bull's case there would be no downward translation of the flap to cause a collision with the mainplane. In Ferrari's case it doesn't matter because they rotate it the opposite way, but you can see if Ferrari rotate there's the same direction as Red Bull, then Ferrari's flap would just smash into the mainplane. The circle plot shows this. The flap leading edge on the Ferrari must move downward before it moves upwards in order to rotate counterclockwise like Red Bull.

[venkyhere]

I think this swing arms at the side are there to have the flap higher and/or more foreward in the open position, in contrast to ferrari. I can`t think of another reason to have such a "complicated" pivot point.

The position of the rotation axis of the flap is primarily to prevent the leading edge of the flap from contacting the trailing edge of the mainplane when it starts to rotate. This is a consideration that has to happen when you intend to rotate the wing in the direction that Red Bull have chosen (for faster pressure recovery), as opposed to the direction that Ferrari have chosen. Unlike what dr obbs said on twitter (Which was wrong), Red Bull would not need to make any compromise to the mainplane (like shortening it). The rotation axis sits above the leading edge of the flap, which means it doesn't move down when it rotates. That's just a geometry thing. If they put the rotation axis at the back like Ferrari, the leading edge of the flap would translate down and hit the mainplane.

https://i.postimg.cc/QC9qTmCq/image.png

With the same position of the hinge (directly above the leading edge of flap), what if the trailing edge of mainplane had an 'upturn' ? (before looking at these close camera shots, I blindly assumed all teams have an upturn on their mainplane trailing edge, since stacked wings work best when they have some overlap, inorder to keep the flow attached for aggressive camber angles).

[AR3-GP]

With the same position of the hinge (directly above the leading edge of flap), what if the trailing edge of mainplane had an 'upturn' ? (before looking at these close camera shots, I blindly assumed all teams have an upturn on their mainplane trailing edge, since stacked wings work best when they have some overlap, inorder to keep the flow attached for aggressive camber angles).

As long as the trailing edge of the mainplane is physically below the flap (that's always the case by definition), then there is no issue. That's demonstrated by this picture. The leading edge of the flap doesn't move down because of where Red Bull placed the pivot axis.

[venkyhere]

With the same position of the hinge (directly above the leading edge of flap), what if the trailing edge of mainplane had an 'upturn' ? (before looking at these close camera shots, I blindly assumed all teams have an upturn on their mainplane trailing edge, since stacked wings work best when they have some overlap, inorder to keep the flow attached for aggressive camber angles).

As long as the trailing edge of the mainplane is physically below the flap (that's always the case by definition), then there is no issue. That's demonstrated by this picture. The leading edge of the flap doesn't move down because of where Red Bull placed the pivot axis.

https://i.postimg.cc/vmjRFPJL/image.png

so by definition of the formula, no overlap in z-direction ? then my Q is invalid.

[AR3-GP]

With the same position of the hinge (directly above the leading edge of flap), what if the trailing edge of mainplane had an 'upturn' ? (before looking at these close camera shots, I blindly assumed all teams have an upturn on their mainplane trailing edge, since stacked wings work best when they have some overlap, inorder to keep the flow attached for aggressive camber angles).

As long as the trailing edge of the mainplane is physically below the flap (that's always the case by definition), then there is no issue. That's demonstrated by this picture. The leading edge of the flap doesn't move down because of where Red Bull placed the pivot axis.

https://i.postimg.cc/vmjRFPJL/image.png

so by definition of the formula, no overlap in z-direction ? then my Q is invalid.

The two wing elements physically cannot occupy the same space in Z. It is physically impossible, not related to any rules. So if the parts are not touching when the DRS is closed, then they won't touch when it opens, because of the position of the rotation axis. That is as long as the mainplane is below the flap.

If there was some curl in the mainplane trailing edge and it wrapped around the leading edge of the flap, then the pivot axis could just move further forwards, so that the flap moves up when it starts to rotate. Every situation can be engineered around by repositioning the axis.

[venkyhere]

As long as the trailing edge of the mainplane is physically below the flap (that's always the case by definition), then there is no issue. That's demonstrated by this picture. The leading edge of the flap doesn't move down because of where Red Bull placed the pivot axis.

https://i.postimg.cc/vmjRFPJL/image.png

so by definition of the formula, no overlap in z-direction ? then my Q is invalid.

The two wing elements physically cannot occupy the same space in Z. It is physically impossible, not related to any rules. So if the parts are not touching when the DRS is closed, then they won't touch when it opens, because of the position of the rotation axis. That is as long as the mainplane is below the flap.

If there was some curl in the mainplane trailing edge and it wrapped around the leading edge of the flap, then the pivot axis could just move further forwards, so that the flap moves up when it starts to rotate. Every situation can be engineered around by repositioning the axis.

I always get the axis' names wrong. I meant overlap in x direction (trailing edge of mainplane directly 'behind' the leading edge of flap) when the multi-element wing structure with high camber, has overlapping surfaces. Just like the front wing. Helps with flow attachment.
Sorry for the stupidly framed Q in my earlier post. Could have drawn a diagram instead.

[AR3-GP]

If there was some curl in the mainplane trailing edge and it wrapped around the leading edge of the flap, then the pivot axis could just move further forwards, so that the flap moves up when it starts to rotate. Every situation can be engineered around by repositioning the axis.

I always get the axis' names wrong. I meant overlap in x direction (trailing edge of mainplane directly 'behind' the leading edge of flap) when the multi-element wing structure with high camber, has overlapping surfaces. Just like the front wing. Helps with flow attachment.
Sorry for the stupidly framed Q in my earlier post. Could have drawn a diagram instead.

Yes I understand you. That is also answered above.

[michl420]

I think this swing arms at the side are there to have the flap higher and/or more foreward in the open position, in contrast to ferrari. I can`t think of another reason to have such a "complicated" pivot point.

The position of the rotation axis of the flap is primarily to prevent the leading edge of the flap from contacting the trailing edge of the mainplane when it starts to rotate. This is a consideration that has to happen when you intend to rotate the wing in the direction that Red Bull have chosen (for faster pressure recovery), as opposed to the direction that Ferrari have chosen. Unlike what dr obbs said on twitter (Which was wrong), Red Bull would not need to make any compromise to the mainplane (like shortening it). The rotation axis sits above the leading edge of the flap, which means it doesn't move down when it rotates. That's just a geometry thing. If they put the rotation axis at the back like Ferrari, the leading edge of the flap would translate down and hit the mainplane.

https://i.postimg.cc/QC9qTmCq/image.png

That`s true, overlooked that.

[Rikhart]

Honestly, this macarena looks better than the Ferrari one, but Alpine's is just so much more elegant and simple than both.

[bananapeel23]

Honestly, this macarena looks better than the Ferrari one, but Alpine's is just so much more elegant and simple than both.

This one is likely to have more severe issues with indeced drag from tip vortices, since the wing elements sit so far behind the endplates.

The Ferrari wing doesn’t have this issue. It also doesn’t need a DRS pod, which leads to less drag.

The Alpine wing looks amazing, but is supposedly more draggy than even a conventional DRS opening. A Macarena is a much more aerodynamically efficient design.